D300 lightning

On Dec 13, 7:51 am, "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> > But there is really very few cases where shooting jpeg only makes
> > sense.
>
> I think I said that. It's all about the targeted audience. I have no
> problems shooting RAW + JPG. If the JPG is good enough to satisfy the
> targeted audiences requirements than the RAW will probably never get used
> and sit there for backup. This just means one has to spend a couple extra
> minutes setting their camera.

I don' t shot raw+jpeg, for me there really no point in it since it is
so easy to convert the raw image to the exact same jpegs that I would
have gotten if I had shot raw + jpeg.

Canon cameras come with a raw converter that is pretty much limited to
what the camera could have don't with its image setting, things like
saturation and contrast. Using this converter and comparing it to
others gives a pretty good feel for just how limited doing this stuff
in camera is.

The jpeg out of the camera can be handy if you want a very quick way
to review the shots you took, but it is really not worth much beyond
that.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

On Dec 13, 1:16 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> That really doesn't surprise me. My gut feeling from what I have seen from
> him so far is he doesn't seem too cool. Maybe that's why he can't shoot
> JPG?

Can't shoot jpeg, you use shooting jpeg as a sign of a good
photographer? really? truly?
Then most of the tourist that come here with their little point and
shoot cameras must be good photographers because 95% of them are
shooting nothing but jpeg, and hey once and a while they even get a
good shot.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

On Dec 13, 12:50 pm, "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> What's wrong with trying to get it right in-camera?

Nothing. Nice strawman.

What's wrong with making the photo even better with a bit of post-
processing?

Keep on shooting your JPGs. I'm sure the photo guy at WalMart is
impressed with them.
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

On Dec 13, 9:32 am, "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> >> That really doesn't surprise me. My gut feeling from what I have
> >> seen from him so far is he doesn't seem too cool. Maybe that's why
> >> he can't shoot JPG?
>
> > Can't shoot jpeg, you use shooting jpeg as a sign of a good
> > photographer? really? truly?
>
> Absolutely! A good photographer, not some pretentious pompous ass, can use
> whatever tools and format they have at hand to get a decent photograph.
The question was not whether a good photographers could get a good
photo using jpeg, clearly that not only doable it is not all that
hard. the question was is shooting in jpeg mode the sign of a good
photographer?


> > Then most of the tourist that come here with their little point and
> > shoot cameras must be good photographers because 95% of them are
> > shooting nothing but jpeg, and hey once and a while they even get a
> > good shot.
>
> So, you are going to assume they have no photographic skills and judge these
> tourists because they aren't shooting with a dSLR? That is just plain
> silly. I had more faith in you than this.

Most of them leave their camera on full automatic mode and hope for
the best, sometime this works very well, other times no so much. It
is ironic that the people who really need to be shooting raw the most
are least likely to do so.

I see how the camera are set up when they ask me to take their photo
with the ocean in the background.

One problem with trying to just "get it right" in the camera and only
shooting jpegs is what is right for one use is not right for another.
So you might have the camera setup to capture a photo that looks good
on the screen, but then does not print well, or you might get a photo
that prints well but does not look as good as it could on the screen.

taking pride in shooting jpeg only seems pretty silly to me, an I
rahter doubt you shoot this way. I am thinking you are pushing jpeg
just to get a rise out of Bret. So how often do you shoot in jpeg
only? I do from time to time, when I only have my P&S with me, other
then that why would I not want to have the raw file?

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

On Dec 13, 10:20 am, "Douglas" <j....TakeThisOut@the.group> wrote:
> "Scott W" <biph....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f3c4c91a-f3ec-4679-ad41-9a6d946ee7df@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> And if I want to work in a larger color space then what. Does any one
> really shoot jpegs in Adobe 1998 RGB?
>
> If I shoot jpeg in sRGB and go out of gamut there in very little I can
> do.
>
> But there is really very few cases where shooting jpeg only makes
> sense.
>
> Scott
>
> The notion of using sRGB is valid if you intend to print on the spot (our
> Santa shoots for example) otherwise Adobe RGB with JPEG allows you to avoid
> losing that 1 stop of DR, another poster claimed happens with JPEGs whilst
> producing an image I believe is as "editable" as most RAW images.
>
> I suppose you know, Scott that you can use Adobe Camera Raw, DxO optix pro
> and Adobe Lightroom to open and edit JPEG images as if they were RAW images?
> The only difference is that compressing a JPEG wrongly as way to many camera
> makers do, can be the fly in the ointment.
>
> If you intend to anchor a camera to a PC, you do that only so you can
> embellish the image or send it to a printer so using Adobe RGB may be OK in
> that situation because in sending it to the printer, you can convert it to
> sRGB.
>
> If you anchor your camera to a printer (Sony Dye Sub in my case) then sRGB
> is the language of the printer so you have to use it in the camera. That's
> fine indoors because I can control the lighting and that controls the
> dynamic range.
>
> It's all about getting it right in the camera. For 30 years I've seen Video
> operators use a disc to get white balance before starting to shoot. What's
> wrong with doing that with your DSLR? They are both video cameras. If you
> know your camera's limitations you can avoid them.
>
> I don't mind shooting RAW but I'll do anything to avoid a week in front of a
> computer screen just because someone thought the camera knew best!


It is not just about dynamic range, sRGB simply does not have as large
a gamut as many printers do, and new monitors that are coming out will
have much more range then sRGB. Once the image is in sRGB the out of
gamut colors are lost and there is no getting them back.

If you shoot in jpg Adobe 1998 RGB you then need to convert any images
that will be displayed on the internet to sRGB, or they will lack
contrast and saturation when viewd. If you are going to this extra
step then why not just shoot raw to begin with?

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

On Dec 13, 3:23 pm, "Douglas" <j... RemoveThis @the.group> wrote:
> "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
> > No wonder you waste so much time in PS, you would rather tie the old 40D
> > on
> > the end of a rope and spin it around hoping you can catch a pic. Like I
> > said, shoot both RAW and JPG and the JPGs will quickly tell you how poor
> > your photographic skills are.
>
> > Rita
>
> He knows that already Rita... I've been telling him for years!

Shooting JPG or RAW+JPG might benefit you guys who pop your cards into
the little kiosks at the WalMart, but it ain't for me. Shooting RAW
+JPG simply wastes storage space. Pro Sportsshooters like it because
it allows them to quickly preview their images, but I am under no such
time restraints. I'm more about quality, not speed.

I think D-Mac and Rita like shooting in "Green Box" mode (aka "idiot
mode") which only allows JPGs to be shot. Things like correct White
Balance are less important to them than getting those 4x6s printed
fast and cheap.
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

On Dec 14, 8:49 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> PixelPix wrote:
> > This is the problem, #1 and #2 idiot always assume that anyone
> > shooting RAW is being slack and not bothering to get it right in
> > camera.... the FACT that getting it right is totally independent of
> > shooting format simply continues to elude them.
>
> Sadly if you find yourself dicking around in post to "get better images" you
> are *NOT* getting it right in-camera. You can make all the excuses you
> want. If you can't produce a decent JPG no amount of posturing and pissing
> around in PS is going to make you a photographer.
>
> Rita

English is not your first language is? It can't be, because you seem
to have no understanding of the things that get written and go off on
your own blind rant about getting it right in camera.

I will type this slow so that you can read it....

G e t t i n g i t r i g h t i n c a m e r a i s t o t a l l y i
n d e p e n d e n t o f s h o o t i n g f o r m a t .

I was say it again so that it has a chance of sinking in.....

G e t t i n g i t r i g h t i n c a m e r a i s t o t a l l y i
n d e p e n d e n t o f s h o o t i n g f o r m a t .

and just one more time for the sledge hammer effect.....

G e t t i n g i t r i g h t i n c a m e r a i s t o t a l l y i
n d e p e n d e n t o f s h o o t i n g f o r m a t .

Now record that to your iPod and play it over and over as you
sleep.... who knows, by morning the penny may just drop.
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

On Dec 13, 12:46 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> >> Absolutely! A good photographer, not some pretentious pompous ass,
> >> can use whatever tools and format they have at hand to get a decent
> >> photograph.
> > The question was not whether a good photographers could get a good
> > photo using jpeg, clearly that not only doable it is not all that
> > hard. the question was is shooting in jpeg mode the sign of a good
> > photographer?
>
> If you don't know how to use the settings in your camera to get a good JPG
> image you clearly don't know how to use the tools on hand. Not knowing how
> to properly use your tools makes you a bad photographer.

Having the tool and not learning how to use it makes you a bad
photographer.
The in camera setting for contrast, sharpness, saturation are really
not needed if you should raw, and
how often do you change them. To shoot in an poor file format and
think that makes you a good photographer is rather silly, but then I
have seen you take silly stands on issues just to stir things up.


> > taking pride in shooting jpeg only seems pretty silly to me, an I
> > rahter doubt you shoot this way. I am thinking you are pushing jpeg
> > just to get a rise out of Bret. So how often do you shoot in jpeg
> > only? I do from time to time, when I only have my P&S with me, other
> > then that why would I not want to have the raw file?
>
> What's wrong with making Bret dance? Like I said earlier, I can shoot both
> and if the JPG satisfies the targeted audience the RAW file most likely will
> never be used. Of course I will archive the RAW file for future needs
> should they arise.

And this is not a bad way to do it, at least you are not throwing out
the raw file.
There is nothing wrong with trying to get the jpeg image to be close
to what you want.

I would not spend a lot of time tweaking the WB in the field, I want
to spend my time shooting not constantly adjusting my camera when I am
shooting. If you would rather spend time up front when shooting that
is up to you, but it does not really make you a better photographer,
it just means you have a different work flow.

I shot for a number of years using an F828, which was so slow at
saving raw files that it was pretty much useless in that mode. I have
a lot of experience with "getting it right" in the camera. But even
so the jpeg I have, as good as there are, still don't have the range
of data that the raw files would have had. I shoot in sRGB and there
is no going back to Adobe RGB, well I could but I would not get the
extra area in the color space, when it is gone it is gone and its not
coming back.

Another thing about jpeg only is that to give a photo a bit of snap
you often have to turn up the contrast, if all you have if the jpeg
this will loss shadow detail that is not coming back. Again if you
are shooting raw + jpeg you have not loss this data for all time, but
for me there is no point in shooting raw + jpeg, with a few clicks of
the mouse I can get the jpegs, so why take up room on the memory card
to store something that is so easy to get from the raw file anyway?

There are three ways to shoot, two of them are fine and really have
very little difference between them.

You can shoot raw, you can shoot raw + jpeg, either of these is fine
and I have no problem with either.
It is the people who shoot only jpeg that I can't understand, if it
makes them happy more power to them, but it does not make them better
photographers, it makes them someone who has little understanding of
the tools at hand.


Scott
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

On Dec 13, 5:46 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
>
> If you don't know how to use the settings in your camera to get a good JPG
> image you clearly don't know how to use the tools on hand.

You still playin with that strawman?
When I want the camera to do all the work I just shoot Fuji Astia 100F
in my Fabulous EOS-1V. With Astia, what you shoot is what you get.


>Not knowing how to properly use your tools makes you a bad photographer.

Throwing away your most powerful tools makes you a stupid
photographer.
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning 

On Dec 13, 5:46 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Keep on shooting your JPGs. I'm sure the photo guy at WalMart is
> > impressed with them.
>
> I use Ritz Big Prints.
>

For the pics of your ass.
 >> Stay informed about: D300 lightning